URL for this article is http://emperors-clothes.com/articles/sinclair/andnow.htmThis version is printable.

The Election Story They Pulled

www.tenc.net
[Emperor's Clothes]

Commentary by Max Sinclair, followed by the
story that disappeared.

It was called "Yugoslav polls fair,
unfair, depending who you ask." It was a 'Reuters' dispatch.
It appeared in the AOL "World News - Europe"
section this afternoon (1:03 PM Eastern Standard Time, US). And
it's not there now. AOL stories stay in "World News"
section for at least two days. This one lasted a few hours.

Fortunately I copied the story and posted it to friends so you
can read it, below. You will note that it quotes Canadian and
British election observers saying that the Yugoslav vote is NOT
being "stolen by Milosevich." In place of this article,
AOL has posted stories dominated by the "He's-stealing-the-election"
line of argument; the opposing side is presented rarely, and when
it is the people quoted are Yugoslav government spokesmen, whom
we have been taught not to believe.. This is consistent with the
US/NATO game plan, evident for some time, to wildly inflate
"democratic" opposition strength while predicting a
Milosevich victory based on "stealing the vote".

We have learned that a week ago a group of
Serbian-American activists were invited to meet with James
O'Brien, Special Assistant to Secretary of State Albright for
Balkan Affairs. He was trying to see if the Serbian-Americans
would publicly attack Milosevich if the Yugoslav Presidential
candidate whom most of them supported, Kostunica, lost the
election. Mr. O'Brien ran into some difficulty, for the Serbian
Americans wouldn't accept his assertion that the U.S. government
wanted the best for the Serbs. "Then why did you bomb
Yugoslavia,' they asked.

They were not cooperative. Mr. O'Brien's
patience was tested. Finally, O'Brien lost it and banged his fist
on the table.

As the meeting ended, one of the Serbian-Americans
asked O'Brien's assistant to clarify U.S. plans. The assistant
said: "If our [!] exit polls show Kostunica has won, and
Milosevich claims victory, we will we will recognize Kostunica as
the legitimate President and urge our European allies to do
likewise."

The following story has plenty of pro-NATO
misinformation, which I will comment on, but it does include some
truth. Apparently that is too much truth in the New World Order. -
Max Sinclair

***

Want to send this story to another AOL member? Click on the
heart at the top of this window.Yugoslav polls fair, unfair, depending who you ask

By Philippa Fletcher

"BELGRADE, Sept 24 (Reuters) - While local independent
monitors reported numerous irregularities in Yugoslav elections
on Sunday, a small group of international observers allowed in by
Belgrade said everything seemed to be fine and democratic."

[Sinclair comments: Note how differently 'Reuters' treats
the two different groups of observers. First, we are
told, there are some "local independent monitors"
who report "irregularities." But who are these
"monitors"? Only one group is named in the
article. That's the "Center for Free and Democratic
Elections." or CISED.

Calling the CISED "local" and "independent"
is prejudicial and absurd. CISED is funded by and works
closely with US agencies. Are people trained and paid by
the US government "independent"? What does
"local" mean when you're a foreign agent?
Clearly 'Reuters' is trying to give readers the
impression that these are grass roots organizers,
fighting repression, when in fact they work for the most
powerful government on earth.

On the other hand, we are informed, there is a group of
"international observers allowed in by Belgrade."
Aside from the fact that the first group gets to be
official-sounding "monitors" (though they have
no official status) while the second is only "observors,"
the "allowed in by Belgrade" is marvelous. It
simultaneously suggests dictatorial rule, with the harsh
"Belgrade" instead of the more accurate "Election
Commission," and paranoia, with the nervous "allowed
in" rather than the more relaxed-sounding "invited."
]

[According to Reuters:] "Marko Blagojevic from the non-governmental
Centre for Free Elections and Democracy (CESID) said earlier the
presidential and parliamentary polls were a 'complete mess,'
citing reports from activists around the country."

[Sinclair comments: Note that 'Reuters' does not identify
the "Centre for Free Elections, etc." except to
say it is non-governmental. But is it non-governmental?
It depends on which government. The CISED is definitely
not tied to the Yugoslav government. But it is very much
associated with the U.S. government and its fake-private
agencies, such as Freedom House and the International
Republican Institute, which recently set up shop in
Sofia, Bulgaria, working through a Bulgarian government
front group (1) to coordinate a disinformation campaign
in conjunction with the "Centre for Free Elections
and Democracy." How much credence should we give
this CISED, which is the agent of the U.S. which has
declared loud and often that the Milosevich government
will definitely "steal" the elections?]

[According to Reuters:] "He said opposition
representatives on electoral commissions had been banned from
some polling stations or barred from watching preparations for
the vote. At one station police were called when they complained."

[The key phrase here is "opposition representatives
on electoral commissions." Who , what commissions,
and where, and what were they trying to do? One of the
tactics used by the "democratic" local
organizations set up by US agencies in other people's
countries is to stage provocations. Example: you send in
a member of the "Centre for Free Elections" who
is not officially recognized as an election monitor and
then when he is tossed out you complain that a "member
of an electoral commission" has been banned.]

[According to Reuters:] "One female CESID monitor was
detained by police for four hours on the eve of the poll after
reporting finding what appeared to be a genuine ballot paper in
her mail box with Milosevich's name ringed in advance. Police
said was lying."

[Sinclair comments: Ahhhh, suspicion confirmed. Keep in
mind that the CESID is NOT an electoral commission. It is
the agent of a foreign power. Can you imagine what would
happen if a group, calling itself "Committee for
Free Elections," but paid by the Serbian government,
tried to "monitor" a U.S. election? So here you
have it - they send her in; she is (understandably)
treated with suspicion, and the CESID has a worldwide
talking point!]

[According to Reuters:] "The group of more than 200
foreign observers from 52 countries allowed in to monitor the
poll after Belgrade barred Europe's leading electoral monitoring
body, the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE),
were not impressed by her story. "

[Sinclair comments: Note how 'Reuters' has to modify
every statement to give it the proper spin. The OSCE is
openly hostile to Serbian sovereignty. When OLSCE
monitors entered Kosovo in the fall of 1998 they used
their presence on Yugoslav territory to organize and
train the Kosovo Liberation Army terrorists and to map
out future bombing targets. That has been admitted in the
Western press. Why in the world should the Yugoslav
government allow these vicious enemies of Yugoslavia to
monitor their elections? Isn't it self evident that they
would use their "first hand knowledge" to
present a lying picture to the world?]

[According to Reuters:] "'So? I've been arrested several
times at demonstrations by the authorities back home,' said
Marjaleena Repo, an observer from Canada calling herself a
'social justice activist.'"

[Sinclair comments. Note that "social justice
activist" is put in quotes but 'Reuters' refers to
the CESID which is a U.S.-controlled agency as "an
electoral commission" - with no quotes. And by the
way, this writer knows Ms. Repo's writings from the
Internet and she IS a social justice activist!]

[According to Reuters:] "Liz Screen from Britain's
Socialist Workers' Party said the story of the Milosevich ballot
paper sounded suspicious, 'like classic Western misinformation.'''

[Sinclair comments: "Far left"? Again,
everything possible is done to discredit the witnesses on
one side, whereas the most obvious point about the other
side - that it is paid by the U.S. government, enemy of
Serbia - is overlooked. Also, BTW, we have been informed
that Liz Screen is a member of the Socialist Labour Party
not the Socialist Workers Party. The SLP is a large group
formed by members of the British Labour Party who became
disenchanted with its policies, including its support for
foreign aggression.]

[According to Reuters:] "Some are activists from Western
countries critical of their governments, notably over NATO's
bombing of Yugoslavia, launched by the alliance last year to halt
what is saw as Belgrade's repression of Kosovo's Albanians."

[Sinclair comments: This is sheer disinformation. The
writer not only repeats a lie - that NATO acted in
response to Yugoslavia suppressing "the Albanian
population" but goes so far as to assert that NATO
leaders believed this lie. In fact NATO only started
talking about repression of Albanians AFTER the bombing
had been going on for several days and it was clear that
the public was overwhelmingly opposed. As for what was
happening before that, we have the evidence of the German
courts and Foreign Ministry, which ruled on Kosovo
Albanians' applications for refugee status. Based on
investigation, the courts and ministry ruled in every
case that the Yugoslav government had not targeted
civilians in its war with the Kosovo Liberation Army
terrorists. (2) ]

"Others are mavericks like Russia's flamboyant ultra-nationalist
leader Vladimir Zhirinovsky or his fellow Slavs, the Cossacks."

[Sinclair comments: Note the effort to paint the
observers as extremists.]

OTHER SIDE OF STORY

[According to Reuters:] "Put up in one of Belgrade's top
hotels, they are feted by officials anxious to tell their side of
a story they feel has been distorted by the world's media."

[Are we seriously supposed to believe that these people
will lose their objectivity because somebody put them up
in a hotel? Why mention that in a sentence that includes
"officials anxious to tell their side of a story
they feel has been distorted by the world's media."
Unless the purpose is to use the hotel to discredit the
story.

Meanwhile, 'Reuters' still has not mentioned that the pro-NATO
side is on the receiving end of millions of dollars in
cash. A story in the 'NY Times' said that "suitcases
full of cash" were being brought across the border
to the "independent" NGOs like CESID and that
their U.S. handlers were telling them to spend as much as
they could because more money was "in the pipeline."]

[According to Reuters:] "Most of those asked about the
elections on Sunday said the voting was going fine, as they had
been told it would be in official briefings."

[Sinclair comments: Again, the sentence that reports the
observers' opinions ("all is going fine") is
offset by the derogatory phrase ("as they had been
told it would be in official briefings.") What about
the U.S. paid "independent observers" who have
been told by hundreds of articles and TV shows to expect
fraud and whose boss, the U.S. government, obviously
wants (and damn well expects!) them to find fraud!]

[According to Reuters:] "My first impression of the
election procedure is that the practice is in line with the
theory we have learned in the last few days...a clear,
democratic, normal, Western standard,'' Elmar Schmaling from
Germany said at a polling station."

[Sinclair comments: I noted before that 'Reuters' went
out of its way to discredit the observers as extremists.
Interesting that they don't identify Schmaling. He is a
former Admiral in the German Navy. He was assigned to
NATO but resigned in 1990 because he realized that NATO
was becoming an aggressive force, the biggest threat to
peace. It is impossible that the Reuters reporter could
talk to this man and not find out he is a retired
Admiral; I have spoken with the Admiral at some length;
he is a very intelligent man and of course would be aware
of the importance of telling 'Reuters' about his former
NATO status. So the writer or more likely the editor,
cut out this fact, critical for Schmaling's credibility
as a witness.]

[According to Reuters:] "'Everything is clear and
democratic. We spoke with the representatives of the opposition
and they said that everything is going fine so far,' said Markos
Domich from Bolivia.'

"None of the observers attended the news conference by
CESID's Blagojevic in which he outlined what he said were just a
few of a string of irregularities."

[Sinclair comments: Again we see the use of a phrase that
is meant to color our perception: "None of the
observers attended." Why should the election
observers attend a CESID press conference? 'Reuters'
fails to point out some obvious problems with this press
conference. If Blagojevic knew about real irregularities,
why is there no mention in this article of an actual time
and an actual place where some irregularity took place?
Wouldn't the CESID spokesman want to be specific? Or was
he afraid that if he named actual places he would open
himself to refutation by the foreign observers who might
have witnessed that no irregularities occured at those
polling places?]

[According to Reuters:] "Screen said Western media
coverage of Yugoslavia was heavily biased, saying the opposition
posters pasted alongside, and sometimes over government ones on
Belgrade streets proved that the country was no dictatorship.

"A senior official of Serbia's opposition Democratic
Party, Cedomir Jovanovic, said off the monitors: 'DOS (the
Democratic Opposition of Serbia bloc) does not consider them
international observers but foreign citizens brought here by
Milosevich to verify election results which he himself will
declare valid regardless of the electoral will of citizens.'''

[Sinclair comments: Apart from the lack of content here (are
people legitimately "observers" only if they
are approved by a U.S. paid party like the Democratic
Party, led by the U.S. paid crook Zoran Djindjic? Apart
from that, why is so little said by the monitors, and so
much said about them? Is that to make sure we don't
listen to their observations?]

[According to Reuters:] "Western diplomats in Belgrade
also fear the monitors will be used by the government to
legitimise its victory whatever the results.

"'I think it is a fig-leaf operation, a Potemkin
operation,' said one.''

[Sinclair comments: Perfect conclusion. An unnamed "Western
diplomat" makes an unsubstantiated accusation, and
that ends it. And yet even this story had too much of
"the other side" to stay posted in the AOL
"World News-Europe" Section.]